posted at 10:32 pm on October 25, 2011 by Allahpundit

The Times claimed on Friday that both sides wanted a U.S. military presence in Iraq to continue next year but that the White House bungled the negotiations by pushing the issue of troop immunity too hard too soon. Now here’s McClatchy thickening the plot: How much of that was due to “bungling” and how much was due to Obama’s and Biden’s studious disinterest?

Throughout the summer and autumn, as talks on a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq foundered, President Barack Obama and his point man on Iraq, Vice President Joe Biden, remained aloof from the process, not even phoning top Iraqi officials to help reach a deal, according to logs released by the U.S. Embassy here.

The omission is an unusual one, given the high priority that U.S. officials had given to achieving an agreement for some sort of residual U.S. presence in Iraq after the Dec. 31 pullout deadline set in a 2008 pact between the two countries. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other senior Pentagon officials spoke often about the need for an agreement in a pivotal country in a volatile region and insisted talks were continuing up until Friday, when Obama announced that all U.S. troops would be coming home before the end of December…

A major complication was the insistence by the Obama administration that the accord go before the Iraqi parliament, something that in the end Iraqi politicians decided was impossible. But whether that restriction was necessary is an open question. Many status-of-forces agreements are signed at the executive level only, particularly in countries without elected legislatures.

But the White House turned the issue over to the State Department’s legal affairs office, reporters in Baghdad were told on Saturday. The lawyers gave a variety of options, but Obama chose the most stringent, approval by Iraq’s legislature of a new agreement, citing as precedent that the Iraqi parliament had approved the 2008 agreement, reporters were told.

In other words, they could have tried to negotiate with Maliki and Talabani directly rather than go through the Iraqi parliament, where the Sadrists had extra leverage. Whether they would have gotten anywhere on immunity with them given the political risk in Iraq of extending the U.S. occupation is unclear, but apparently the White House wasn’t eager to find out. An Obama spokesman insists that the story’s “totally wrong” and that The One and Biden were “engaged” with Iraqi leaders all along, but an Iraqi government spokesman didn’t deny the lack of contact when asked by McClatchy. Any theories on why the White House would have chosen a path of, shall we say, benign neglect on extending our troop presence? Maybe this data point from the new Times poll can help:

His approval on Iraq is suddenly up eight points since the withdrawal was announced, as I’m sure he expected it would be. If he thought extending the troop presence was a bad idea all along, notwithstanding what that would mean for Iran’s influence in Iraq, that’s fine. If he thought it was a good idea but then balked when Iraq insisted on an end to troop immunity, that’s also fine. And if he thought both those questions were subordinate to the political calculus of re-election — as Lindsey Graham put it, “Iraq and Afghanistan is being run out of Chicago, not Washington” — well, that’s not so fine but there’s nothing we can do about it. But whatever the answer is, at least be proactive about it. Don’t leave Panetta to languish for months trying to make something happen with Iraqi leaders while conspicuously refusing to bring to bear the full influence of the presidency on his behalf. The McClatchy piece leaves one to wonder if they were secretly hoping all along that negotiations would collapse, in which case Panetta’s efforts were either a going-through-the-motions show aimed at placating American hawks or else a bona fide attempt to reach a deal that the White House had no intention of capitalizing on. Embarrassing either way.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Obama had no intention of following through with negotiations with the Iraqis. There would be no SOFA. It was not part of Obama’s grand plan scheme. He can now say it was the Iraqis exercising their own sovereignty that compelled us to leave. He can also say it was he, the great and grand Obama, who brought all the troops home.

Well, of course not, those are prime golfing/vaca months. If you want Obama/Biden to call you, you must schedule your 10 minutes from Nov-Mar, unless your union/lobbyist/wall street, then and only then is the WH open for business.

What did you want Obama to do? Bow down and beg them to let us stay? They wanted no immunity for American Soldiers and Marines as the price. That would mean they could try American Soldiers and Marines at their whim in Shariah Courts and sentence them under Islamic Law. To Hell with that !!!

We gave the Iraqis an opportunity they have quite adequately proved they didn’t want, and certainly did not use properly. Were we supposed to stay until the Iraqis became sufficiently interested in their own fates to behave responsibly, learn to govern themselves, rebuild their economy, and take responsibility for their own security? If so, we would be there 100 years. If we waited for them to become friends of the principles we claim to hold dear, we would be there 1000 years. If we waited for them to become a “strategic ally” or a beacon of liberty in the Middle East, the sun would burn out first.

We should immediately form an American Lincoln Brigade for all those fire-breathers who huff and puff about how Obama is running out on the poor brave helpless Iraqis. Let them go to replace American soldiers who have uncomplainingly served in that flyblown hellhole.

What does he think his poll numbers will look like if Iraq goes to hell in a handbasket between January and November 2012? If Iraq descends into Islamic tyranny, or Iran moves in… Obama will look like a clown. He’ll have squandered our investment of blood and treasure for nothing.

What’s the news here? Obama has been on Jihad against America all his life, giving Iraq’s oil fields and people over to Iran, just another part of the plan. This decision, unlike the rest of the destruction he has brought to our culture and economy, will end in the death of millions of us and the end of our country. Then, you add the 30,000 SAMs that were “liberated” from Libya in his latest foreign policy FU, no telling who has them now, probably Iran, it may well come sooner than you think. I’m starting to believe that he cares not about the election in 2012, just the 72 virgins.

The reset he and his super antisemitic advisers want is Iran/Iraq/Syria Axis on the east and an Egypt/Libya duo on the west of Israel with the Turks acting as the broker under Obama control to make Israel an offer they cannot refuse.

The McClatchy piece leaves one to wonder if they were secretly hoping all along that negotiations would collapse, in which case Panetta’s efforts were either a going-through-the-motions show aimed at placating American hawks or else a bona fide attempt to reach a deal that the White House had no intention of capitalizing on. Embarrassing either way

Dude. They are at the phase in their playbook where, if you can’t get something done, they just make it look like you did, or kinda look like you did, and say “Hey Look! We tried!” and walk off shrugging your shoulder and heading off to the Andrews Golf Course where you can send your condolences to some freshly croaked Arab via Sat phone. ahhhh well.

I don’t feel bad about us leaving Iraq. If we were to go to war with Iran, Iraq will support the Iranians. They are not a republic that respects individual rights, but instead, a theocracy where women are worse off now than they were under Saddam. Modern Iraq is the antithesis of modernity. The same applies to Afghenistan, who are also our enemies. Let’s face it. We are wasting money and lives by staying in these Islamist he’ll holes. If they want to live in the 7th century, we should let them, and if their countries devolve into civil war, then that’s their problem.

Graham (Lucy), has been spitting bullets over BO’s decision to pull out. Graham is a jerk on most issues, but on the military I tend to give him some respect.

I’ve never seen him so pi$$ed off about anything as he is with this decision, and he isn’t holding back. At the same time, one has to question his judgement. What would anyone have expected from BO? Every decision is politically motivated. Killing OBL was. Quadaffi made him look good, but the Euroweenies had more to gain from his demise. In this case leading from behind was easy and made Barfy look good because most Americans won’t understand the difference.

Liberals waste money, treasure, lives and the future. That’s our putz president. It’s all he knows. If he wins another four years, he may learn a lesson when the money finally runs out, but he won’t care because he’s one of those folks who “have enough money” as he says.

We have a so-called “president” who is a bottom-feeding, scum sucking, marxist thief.

So Sheriff Joe’s his point man on Iraq – how’s that partition working out, Joe? Isn’t he also his point man on the Stimulus, and Green Energy and 200 lb men standing over you, making you submit? That’s a full plate.

The level of interest from B & O is the main indication Maliki & Co had of whether it would be worth it to negotiate for the US to stay in Iraq.

The Iraqis would be sticking their necks out to continue hosting a big US troops presence. If they were to do that, they’d need to know we’re committed.

The commitment would have to be more than a casual “Sure, whatever, we’ll stay.” It would have to come with a plan; a strategic vision; something better for Iraq than what she can achieve by cutting the ties now and playing off Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia against each other. Russia will be in the mix as well. Iraq has to know the US commitment would withstand pushback from Iran and from AQ-type Islamists, and that it would pay off better than snuggling up to Turkey and Russia.

As recently as August, Maliki’s office was discussing allowing 8,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops to remain until next year, Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaida’ie said in an interview with The Cable. He told us that there was widespread support in Iraq for such an extension, but the Obama administration was demanding that immunity for U.S. troops be endorsed by the Iraqi Council of Representatives, which was never really possible.

Administration sources and Hill staffers also tell The Cable that the demand that the troop immunity go through the Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy’s diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity.

“An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that’s done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry,” said one former senior Hill staffer. “If State says that this requires a treaty or a specific agreement by the Iraqi parliament as opposed to a statement by the Iraqi foreign ministry, it has its head up its ass.”

Obama and minions wanted out for the last 9 years even though they said they did not when they got in. The military leaders are the one who wanted to stay not the minions. So they when they got their chance to negotiate they took to the biggest most outrages thing first and then blame Iraq for not doing to it. Then took the ball and went home.

To think that O and minions would go to bat to stay when his entire base and every yes men adviser said get out on day one and ran on getting out at the first chance must have been sleeping for the last 9 years. Just like every political battle that they have done with the republicans. Ask for the moon and then settle on a mountain. Iraq folded the bluff of asking for the moon and would not settle on a mountain.

The continuing belief in the mindset that is still stuck in the Bush/Wilsonian hogwash that by expending enough Blood and enough Treasure, and no mater how much it never seems enough, America can build liberal (in the classic definition) democracies in the Muslim world that will be friendly towards the United States is to the clear point of being a mental illness. It has failed miserably. Iraq has turned into an ally of Iran and did so quite some time ago. On to Afghanistan! On to Libya! On to Syria! On to Sudan!

…and his approval on the issue goes up 8 points.
And that’s how you get a media brainwashed 52% to vote this corrupt , clueless, political cipher from the Chicago leftist swamp into the White House.
Try to tell me the republic isn’t finished.

Well, he said the price of oil would have to skyrocket to discourage demand and fight global warming. What better way than to turn the oil producing regions of the Middle East over to Iran while turning off domestic production. The Enviros will be pleased by $200 per barrel oil.

Maintaining existential blamelessness is not part of the job description, Mr. President. You can’t be President and skip along on the surface like you’ve apparently done with the whole of the rest of your life.

Maintaining existential blamelessness is not part of the job description, Mr. President. You can’t be President and skip along on the surface like you’ve apparently done with the whole of the rest of your life.

The Times claimed on Friday that both sides wanted a U.S. military presence in Iraq to continue next year but that the White House bungled the negotiations by pushing the issue of troop immunity too hard too soon.

BS…bottomline…Obama wants out and is just using that as an excuse to do so.

And a bigger point that hurts him with his base. Obama did nothing to get us out of Iraq earlier.

He embraced Bush’s plan , while pretending to be changing things

Bush laid it all out and Obama just continued with war mongering.

Obama made promises he did not intend to keep. He rallied against a war our troops were fighting to get support for his election campaigns, even though it disillusioned the troops about their fight and mission
This fact is still not lost on the troops.

The “report” you are promoting is an attempt to soften the criticism of him by his own base.